SEXUAL OFFENDERS

Dr Chong Weng Chiew asked the Minister for Law (a) what is the rationale behind the Singapore Land Authority's requirement for 3 months rental deposits or security in lieu from charitable voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) since the rentals are being paid by their respective ministries; and (b) this being the case, will the Minister consider having this requirement waived as the 3 months' deposits are quite substantial and can be better utilised by the VWOs.

Prof. S. Jayakumar: Like other prudent landlords, SLA requires a security deposit to be paid by a VWO renting state premises for the following reasons:

(a) firstly, to ensure that the tenant complies with the conditions of the tenancy agreement,

(b) secondly, to ensure payment of rental, and,

(c) thirdly, to recover the cost of repairs and rectifications in the event of any damages when the tenant vacates the property.

As a general practice, SLA collects rental payments directly from the VWO. However, in some cases, the parent agency overseeing the VWO requests to pay the rentals directly to SLA to avoid incurring late payment charges. Even for these cases, the security deposit is still required to ensure that the VWO complies with the conditions of the tenancy agreement as well as to cover the cost of repairs and rectifications arising from any damages to the property.

For these reasons, the Singapore Land Authority requires a security deposit, currently set at 3 months. SLA is prepared to waive the deposit for VWOs that have secured a guarantee from a parent agency or ministry. In addition, to ease the cashflow of VWOs, SLA is also prepared to accept other forms of guarantee, such as a banker's or an insurance guarantee, in lieu of upfront cash deposit.

Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Law whether he will direct the prosecutor not to reveal the name of the person who is charged with a sexual offence until he/she is proven guilty by a court of law.

Prof. S. Jayakumar: Sir, I had responded to a similar query at the Committee of Supply debate in 1996.

The Minister for Law does not have the powers to direct the Public Prosecutor not to disclose the names of accused persons. Indeed, there are no legal provisions specifically prohibiting the disclosure of an accused person's identity.

Persons accused of sexual offences are not more vulnerable than persons accused of other types of offences. Hence, if we introduce a measure, say, by amending the law, to suppress the identity of an accused person in a molest or rape case until he is found guilty, then, we should similarly adopt the same measure for other types of offences. A person, whether male or female, charged with, say, murder, assault, theft or criminal breach of trust, will potentially face the same sort of embarrassment as a person charged with committing a sexual offence.

At a more fundamental level, it is a basic principle of our legal system that, except in extraordinary circumstances, the courts are open to the public. This ensures that court proceedings are transparent and subject to public scrutiny. Hence, the media must generally be free to report what goes on in court.

Where a trial is covered by the media, it will usually follow up with a report of the verdict. The publication that a defendant has been acquitted ought to set the record straight.

The positions adopted by other countries, for example, the United Kingdom and Canada are largely similar to Singapore's.